How do I prove he is depriving himself of income?

clearingout

jetta_wales wrote: »

By not giving his ex more money than she needs to give them a perfectly adequate quality of life? Depends on wether he himself is a complete no show or not I guess. If he isn't though then I don't see why she has to be the one to spend his extra money on them (or maybe herself of course).

but who are you (or me) or the ex to say what a 'perfectly adequate quality of life' is? and why is the money 'extra'? If it's part of his income, it's part of his income, the PWC is 'entitled' to a cut of that (we can argue the moral side of that till the cows come home!). It's not OK to sign over your business to someone else just to avoid child maintenance. My ex tried to do that on me - our joint mortgages unpaid for months, but he's off on holidays and building hot tubs in the back garden (of a jointly owned property with me) saying 'it's not my money'. But it was OUR money as it came from OUR business, the one we'd set up and worked at together. He gave her a hefty salary for not doing any work for him and declares about 1/3 of what he actually earns to the CSA. All 'legal'. Is that OK? Because he thinks that no maintenance payments whatsoever is OK and he 'needs' to go on holiday and my family has plenty of money (in his eyes) to support me and our children?

Don't get me wrong, I have every sympathy with those parents who are spending a small fortune every month to maintain contact or keep the ex in the manner to which she is accustomed. But assuming £68 is somehow a moral amount to give is wrong.

jetta_wales

Is there really any excuse to need to scrimp and save on £300 extra a month?

cte1111

jetta_wales wrote: »

Is there really any excuse to need to scrimp and save on £300 extra a month?

Please change the record.

hop25scotch

The OPs ex has no morals so they are not relevant. He has worked the system in his favour, or, as it would seem, got other people to do it for him.

If the CSA digs deeper, I would suspect the 15K salary is cosmetic in nature and he is remunerated by offshore property trusts which are common with the Irish brotherhood. Unfortunately for HMRC they are not visible to HMRC, only to the country they reside and there, they may be perfectly legal.

We know nothing about contact with the children, but where income is abundant the children would rarely go without and might explain why little is mentioned about contact by the OP. I would hazard a guess the children are getting all the treats and his ex is missing out now he inherited his fortune from the estate of his deceased employer.

Two questions for a tribunal are: a) Has the NRP deprived himself of income? My answer: I would say he has, and did so by spiriting off a company he inherited from his employer leaving himself an employee. b) By what amount should Child support be set? Answer: the length of the string.

jetta_wales

clearingout wrote: »

but who are you (or me) or the ex to say what a 'perfectly adequate quality of life' is? and why is the money 'extra'? If it's part of his income, it's part of his income, the PWC is 'entitled' to a cut of that (we can argue the moral side of that till the cows come home!). It's not OK to sign over your business to someone else just to avoid child maintenance. My ex tried to do that on me - our joint mortgages unpaid for months, but he's off on holidays and building hot tubs in the back garden (of a jointly owned property with me) saying 'it's not my money'. But it was OUR money as it came from OUR business, the one we'd set up and worked at together. He gave her a hefty salary for not doing any work for him and declares about 1/3 of what he actually earns to the CSA. All 'legal'. Is that OK? Because he thinks that no maintenance payments whatsoever is OK and he 'needs' to go on holiday and my family has plenty of money (in his eyes) to support me and our children?

Don't get me wrong, I have every sympathy with those parents who are spending a small fortune every month to maintain contact or keep the ex in the manner to which she is accustomed. But assuming £68 is somehow a moral amount to give is wrong.

Your situations certainly sounds quite different indeed if he's doing it to avoid paying you all together.

I just don't buy the pleading poverty on that much CSA onto of her own earnings or benefits (as they're not deducted from benefits now) so personally I'm inclined not to sympathise at all.

If it was about how little he does for them or sees them and how bad a parent he is in any other respect than money then sure expect more and give the kids the world but it's not it's about how much she really needs that extra money and I don't buy that tbh. £300 a month is plenty enough to bring it way out of the realms of 'need' and just into want.

jetta_wales

cte1111 wrote: »

Please change the record.

Feel free to press ignore if my opinion bores you

izzybusy23

jetta_wales wrote: »

Is there really any excuse to need to scrimp and save on £300 extra a month?

Jeez!!!! Change the record love!!! You don't know how much the OP is earning so how on earth do you come to the conclusion that £300 is acceptable? You don't know about her lifestyle, what debts she may have or he may have left; get off your high horse!! She is fully entitled to 15% of what ever income he has; if that means persuing him to the ends of the earth to uncover hidden income to evade child support then good luck to her. Thats what she is 'entitled to' by law; whatever you may think. Morals do not come in to it!!

And you say you are a PWC???? How much do you get a week out of interest?

cte1111

jetta_wales wrote: »

Feel free to press ignore if my opinion bores you

It wasn't an opinion, it was a repeated loaded question.

System

hop25scotch wrote: »

He has worked the system in his favour, or, as it would seem, got other people to do it for him.

As would, probably, 99% of people. If there is a legal way to reduce outgoings then it is human nature to take that course.

As things appear to stand the OPs ex has done nothing legally wrong, morally is a different question. It sounds as though the company employs a very good accountant and solicitor who know how to use the system to their customer's advantage and stay the right side of the law.

hop25scotch

jetta_wales wrote: »

Is there really any excuse to need to scrimp and save on £300 extra a month?

I dont think there is any scrimping going on, read the posts, it mentions a house, albeit not finished, luxury lifestyle etc. £300 a month wouldnt make a batts difference. Many in the Irish commercial building trade get through that in one night on the poker table.

People with this lifestyle do so because they can. With the CSA its usually the self employed that are invulnerable, here, its an employee with no assets, leaving little to investigate using the procedural channels.

Its very sound financial planning.